more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
To the extent that the occupants of a particular niche do not coincide with the members of a particular genealogical line, a possibility widely acknowledged to occur, ecologists must favour a method of classification lacking genealogical grounding.
Gist of Idea
Ecologists favour classifying by niche, even though that can clash with genealogy
Source
John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 2)
Book Ref
Dupré,John: 'The Disorder of Things' [Harvard 1995], p.43
A Reaction
Zoo keepers probably classify by cages, or which zoo owns what, but that doesn't mean that they reject genealogy. Don't assume ecologists are rejecting any underlying classification that differs from theirs. Compare classification by economists.
| 10398 | Natural kinds are not special; they are just well-defined resemblance collections [Abelard, by King,P] |
| 13575 | If there are borderline cases between natural kinds, that makes them superficial [Ellis] |
| 16954 | Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much [Dummett] |
| 6765 | Nominal essence may well be neither necessary nor sufficient for a natural kind [Kripke, by Bird] |
| 15299 | Species do not have enough constancy to be natural kinds [Harré/Madden] |
| 17375 | Natural kinds are decided entirely by the intentions of our classification [Dupré] |
| 17380 | Wales may count as fish [Dupré] |
| 17382 | Cooks, unlike scientists, distinguish garlic from onions [Dupré] |
| 17379 | Borders between species are much less clear in vegetables than among animals [Dupré] |
| 17384 | Even atoms of an element differ, in the energy levels of their electrons [Dupré] |
| 17387 | Ecologists favour classifying by niche, even though that can clash with genealogy [Dupré] |
| 10351 | Natural kinds are social institutions [Kusch] |